THHE Destini Secures MMEA OPV Contract

Damen 1800 OPV, the likely design for the MMEA OPV requirement.

KUALA LUMPUR: THHE Destini Sdn Bhd has secured the contract for three offshore patrol vessels (OPV) for the Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency. The contract is worth RM738.9 million, the company said in a filing with Bursa Malaysia on Jan. 19.

From Bernama

KUALA LUMPUR: THHE Destini Sdn Bhd has secured a RM738.9 million contract for the supply, delivery, testing and commissioning of three units of offshore patrol vessels (OPVs) for Malaysia Maritime Enforcement Agency.

In a filing to Bursa Malaysia today, THHE Destini said, the contract, for 42 months, was expected to contribute positively to its earnings and net assets per share for the financial years ending Dec 31, 2017 to Dec 31, 2020.

THHE Destini is a joint-venture company between TH Heavy Engineering Bhd’s (THHE) unit, THHE Fabricators Sdn Bhd, and Destini Shipbuilding and Engineering Sdn Bhd. — BERNAMA

Damen 1800 OPV, the likely design for the MMEA OPV requirement.

The filing however, did not specified the OPV design to be build. Malaysian Defence has reported previously that it will be a Damen design.

Damen 1800 OPV.

As mentioned previously, it is likely the signing of the contract will be done at LIMA 17 this March.

— Malaysian Defence

If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment

Share
About Marhalim Abas 1163 Articles
Shah Alam

7 Comments

  1. Good news. This will replace the ageing Langkawi OPV right?

    Reply
    Its likely that the Langkawis will be superseded by the Pekan

  2. No matter. The MMEA is sorely in need of new assets. Great news. With the Sulu Sea security in the news again, we should welcome any new assets

  3. We don’t really have a need for OPVs in the Sulu Sea. The MMEA intends to use them further offshore; in areas such as the Spratlys and the northern approaches to the Melaka Straits. Lets hope [1] All enter service time, within spec and within budget [2] That there’re plans and the budget to fly UAVs off their heli-decks.

  4. LMS target cost estimated around RM200m per vessel as compared to MMEA NGOPC. Why don’t just the authority just enlarge the number of vessels to be purchased for MMEA OPV to include LMS destined to RMN? Rough calculation based on the estimated cost RM246M per vessel for MMEA, let say increase the number to 10, 3 for OPV, while the rests go to RMN. This is just my thought.

    Reply
    The more, the merrier

  5. It would have been an excellent idea to have had a common design to meet the RMN’s LMS and the MMEA’s OPV requirements.

    For such a thing to happen however, a number of issues would have had to be sorted out first. For one, the MMEA and RMN would have had to agree on a common design. Getting MAF sister services to agree on certain things is sometimes and issue and this would have required the RMN and MMEA [both agencies run by different Ministries and under different budgets] to coordinate on joint procurement. There may also have been certain aspects of the hull design that the MMEA would want or would want incorporated to the design but not the RMN and vice versa – naturally the hulls selected for the LMS will cost more given the RMN will fit more stuff on it.

    Another issue would have been the delivery schedule; both the RMN and MMEA would want to be the first to take delivery and given that the local yard can only construct so many ships simultaneously both would have had to make compromises. Looking at the Damen 1800 design, I can’t see why it can’t be used for the LMS. Assuming the MMEA still has a requirement for additional fix wing aircraft; there is no reason why the RMAF’s future MPA can’t be the same design as the MMEA’s [with a lot of stuff left out of course] – this however will take a lot of planning and bureaucratic hurdles to overcome.

  6. Agreed with azlan on common design for multi agency that will not happen. Even on land, for example, official 4WD for agencies also not a common design.

    Reply
    The problem with a common design is that the yard that got the original contract will not want to share it with others. It’s the same last time when DRB Hicom or the company that preceded it got the contract to supply the Pajeros, everyone else complained that they were shut out of the lucrative revenue stream. So now the more, the merrier policy is followed

  7. For it to work there be must the intent from the very start to have a joint procurement model and for it to have strong government backing [in case the respective agencies show reluctance]. The problem is that this will not only require early planning and coordination, as well as agreement [very hard to do] between the different ministries and different agencies but it also involves politics as in the local companies left out due to joint procurement will make noise.

    Marhalim, when was the last time the Ministry of Defence ordered Pajeros? The only Pajeros I’m aware of us ordering was a batch in the late or early 1990’s via a local company United Straits Fuso Sdn. Bhd. For that matter, do you know when was the last batch of Land Rovers ordered?

    Reply
    USF is part of DRB HICOM. Sorry I am not sure about both contracts. The Defence Ministry mostly used Isuzu Troopers, for VIP work which also came from USF but majority of the Pajeros were used by the police and other government agencies. A small number of Pajeros were bought by Mindef for officers which did not qualify for the Troopers. I think they stop buying the Land Rovers when they started using the Weststar pickup circa 2013/2014

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.